- Score limit only 2, not 3
OR
- there are two rounds, no matter how what score the teams have... (like in Assault)... but I don't know whether that works...

And this is my proposal: remove those maps. I don't get it, if there is so many complains about overtimes on these maps, why won't we just remove them? :F And don't say we won't do that just because they are often voted, mass destruction and sands of destruction were often voted too, but they are gone.

Notice there is no complaining about overtimes on, let's say, Volcano High. Boring overtimes aren't the fault of the game, they are fault of the Gunshop, Battlefront and the rest of the choke "family". So why, FFS, we change the time left to overtime, instead of removing the reason of the problem? I don't get it.

These boring choke maps are also the reason why most of the decent players who play on the ONS server just quit playing on it.

I know, most of you probably fear that without choke maps the server will become abandoned (which is an absurd IMO).
So maybe we should replace them with a decent maps, but without that choke crap?

Also, I think it's a good idea to try alternative non-choke node setups on the choke maps (Gunshop, battlefront etc.) during the weekend. I bet the server won't be abandoned, let's try it.

if that would be so bad, then we wouldnt have so many players which play regulary on our server..
i personally have no problem with overtime, finding a way to brake the choke or even playing in the overtime is fun for me. so if you ask me i would rather play a choke map then a map which finishs in 20 minutes

First, sorry for intruding in the forums but I think some of you may I have already seen me on the ONS server (especially around Christmas) so I don't feel a complete stranger to this.

I have discussed all of this with Meledictum and although we don't have exactly the same opinion, I concur with his proposition and just wanted to give my arguments.

I believe the main issue with choke node setups is that it can lead to situations where strategy is less important than "raw numbers". I mean sometimes when playing Battlefront or Gunshop I have the feeling many players are just cannon fodder charging on the choke node. No teamplay involved.

I like these maps but too many times after a round ending in overtime I left because most of the round time had been spent on going on and on the same thing.

I truly think such maps could benefit from alternative node setups with at least a second route.
Take for instance Storage-Facility. It often ends in overtime but there is more thrill involved since you have two node chains to defend/attack and losing one can lead to the loss of the over (getting one side node near the enemy base, then the middle node and then the other side node to isolate the other nodes).
In such a map you can go overtime but you don't have the feeling nothing important happened after the nodes were built for the first time.

In my opinion this is the kind of things that give Onslaught its full dimension not limiting it to a kind of DM with vehicles.

The same thing can be said of a map like Maelstrom-NV (this one can't be said to be a choke map). On Titan I had several good matches ending in overtime but so many comebacks/node isolations had happened that I never had the feeling so much time had passed.

Of course the server is still attracting even with choke maps because these are good maps. But in my opinion it could be even funnier with non-choke node setups.

Therefore I second Meledictum in advising alternative node setups to be tested the week-end (or on specific days) and then checking if the overall feeling is it is funnier or not.

I can very well understand your arguments and quite often, I suffer from the same frustration on these maps. Especially, if my team starts camping around in Turrets, Tanks, SPMAs, etc. rather than attacking the next node. This way, overtime is nearly forced and I am doomed to be the cannon fodder because of useless attacks against the enemy team almost on my own.

The reason why I don't support Meledictum in this question is that I simply like these maps and would not want them to be removed. I know that the most important thing is gameplay, but for me, the beauty and originality also counts. It's just fun to be a miniature fighter in an oridinary environment like Gunshop, for example. For the same reason, I missed MassDestruction and ToySoldiers when they were removed. They were somehow unique, compared to other maps.

If we can find better node setups for Battlefront, Gunshop, etc. that wouldn't be a problem for me. But I would be disappointed if they were simply removed from the server.

@Coco : Well, although the beginning of his post mention removing, I think Meledictum is in favor of testing alternate node setups (the two last sentences of his post) in order to still play Gunshop, Battlefront etc... without boring overtimes.

I completely agree with the fact that a map like ToySoldiers is highly original.

Now, I have another suggestion. I remember playing on some servers which change the node setup between each round.
I know some players don't like that because it's disturbing and if the map is asymmetrical it can give the edge to one team. But, it can be a less "harmful" way of trying new link setups.

I'd like to add that trying new node setups to find the best is quite a long process which needs some feedback. I'm no coder/mapper but I see on Titan people discussing quite a lot on node setups.

To keep on Titan, there was a few days ago somebody advertising for the Thunderdome servers and some Titaneers did express their interest towards servers running maps less "large" than those usually used for 32-player games.
Therefore I believe, if needed, some people from there could help finding new setups which would keep the spirit of the map.
One potential risk of course would be of having then a lot of complains about not having SRs at every weapon locker

Yeah I think we should or remove maps like Gunshop or just change link setup. No other way. Current state makes ppl hate our server except some lamers and spammers._________________www.marcinbblack.deviantart.com

Now, I have another suggestion. I remember playing on some servers which change the node setup between each round.
I know some players don't like that because it's disturbing and if the map is asymmetrical it can give the edge to one team. But, it can be a less "harmful" way of trying new link setups.

Hmm, this is already done as far as I know. Maybe there's only one node setup for Gunshop, ToySoldiers and Battlefront? Can't remember to have ever seen an alternate one there.

I think the problem is more general and occurs not only on specific maps. Just look at our TAM servers how often maps are changed there and how often maps are changed on our ONS server... they take too much time overall...

@the_kay: Hi. I understand your opinion but what I'm trying to tell (and I think Meledictum & Marcin too) is that a map can go overtime (take too much time) but still be fun if there is some thrill involved all the time of the match.

I don't know if you have already felt that but on some maps (Volcano High is a very good example taken by Meledictum) you have the feeling you fight 100% up to the last second. Sometimes a team, previously losing, can take a bold and coordinated action and change the result of the round during the last seconds. And I believe choke node setups don't allow that kind of action.

As for comparing TAM to ONS, I'm not sure this can be done. Indeed, they don't involve the same kind of strategy of teamplay and strategy.
Even comparing TAM to Freon is not easy while they are quite similar.

Now here is a suggestion and the explanations for Battlefront:

As you can see there are two main ways:

- The long way (5, 6, 8, 3, 2): It is a good defensive way (bunkers at 6 & 3) and it allows access to the Ion tank (, a major offensive asset.

I have linked directly 6 & 3 so that going to the Ion tank is only an option. You can divert forces to get it but at your own risk and peril since while your forces are there, the enemy can isolate you.

- The quick way (4, 7, 1): Faster to build, but more exposed to counter-attack at 7. However, if you manage to get the complete line, you can have access at the core AND an option to isolate the enemy long way (at 5 or 2).

As a consequence, although the main action will still take place at battlefront (3, 8, 6) you can't allow your "battleback" to be left undefended. Meaning that while battling on the long way, if you see the enemy doing a breakthrough on the quick way, you'd better react fast.

Now, there is a problem due to the map being built on a central symmetry instead of a horizontal symmetry. As you can see, red have an advantage because 4 is hangar node (easier to defend) while 1 is an exposed node.
If possible, it would be better if 4 was also an exposed node. the quick way would then be a completely exposed way, making it harder to defend and allowing easier comebacks.

I hope this can give you an idea of how a map can be made more frantic with a different node setup.
Any comment/critics welcome but don't be too hard on me as I'm no coder/mapper and this is my first try.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum